Get the newsletter

The Politics of the Plate

5|3|10

By Barry Estabrook

[Barry Estabrook, the former food and politics writer at Gourmet, blogs at www.politicsoftheplate.com. His story about the horrors of labor and Florida-grown tomatoes was among the best of 2009, and it isn’t only me who thinks so – he won a Beard award last night. On Twitter, he regularly serves up snippets about food and politics @Barry_Estabrook. And here on markbittman.com, he will be contributing a weekly roundup on newsworthy food events. – mb]

Strike Three for Atlantic Bluefin

Endangered Atlantic bluefin tuna can’t seem to catch a break. Strike one came late last year when the International Commission on the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas voted to allow fishermen to take 13,500 metric tons of tuna this year, a number that the commission’s own scientists said left the majestic fish with only a 50-50 chance of avoiding extinction. Strike two was thrown in March by the Committee on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) when they buckled under Japanese lobbying and voted not to give the species protection.

Last week, it was British Petroleum’s turn to deal a devastating blow to Atlantic bluefins with oil leaking from its sunken drilling platform off Louisiana. The Gulf of Mexico is one of only two spawning grounds for the fish and it happens that now is peak time for mating, said Chris Mann of the Pew Environmental Trust in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. Fortunately, the heart of the breeding grounds lies southwest of the oil slick, but Mann worried that prevailing winds might blow bluefin eggs into the contaminated area.

Genetically Modified Justice a la Clarence Thomas

Last month, the Supreme Court began hearings on a case that could be pivotal to both sides of the GMO argument. In 2007, a lower court issued an injunction against planting genetically modified alfalfa produced by Monsanto after determining that the United States Department of Agriculture had approved its use without sufficient scrutiny. Monsanto is appealing the injunction.

Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself because his brother was a judge in the lower court case. Fair enough. But conservative judge Clarence Thomas, who did legal work for Monsanto back in the 1970s, declined to recuse himself. Oral arguments last week indicated that Clarence’s conservative colleagues on the bench were not buying the argument that the GM alfalfa could contaminate nearby non-GMO alfalfa. A decision is expected this summer.

Coke to Shareholder Group: Things Go Better with BPA

Last month 22 percent of Coca-Cola’s shareholders supported a resolution asking the soft drink company to disclose how it is dealing with concerns about the safety of bisphenol A, a plastic coating used to line the inside of cans. The company refused to provide the asked-for information, saying that it would not be “useful to our shareholders,” according to Food Quality News. The company said it would continue to take its guidance about the chemical’s safety from regulatory agencies.

Maybe the Coke execs should take a look at the latest information from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which recently ordered new studies into the chemical’s safety. In a January update to on BPA, the FDA said that it shared “the perspective of the National Toxicology Program that recent studies provide reason for some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children.”

It also said, “In addition, FDA is supporting reasonable steps to reduce human exposure to BPA, including actions by industry.”

Obama’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy on GMO Foods

An obscure unit of the United Nations called Codex begins meetings this week in Quebec City, and its deliberations could determine whether food processors who trade internationally will be permitted to say on labels that their products are free of GMO ingredients.

That’s right. The Obama administration is pushing a position first articulated by the Bush Whitehouse that foods sold internationally should not be labeled “No GMOs” even if the statement is true. The administration claims that telling the public the truth about GMOs is “false, misleading, or deceptive.” Their somewhat convoluted reasoning: there is no difference between GMO and non-GMO food and telling the truth might make consumers think there is. (Photograph by iStockphoto)

28 Comments

The January BPA comment reassured the public of BPA’s safety, but admitted that certain data on specific studies dealing with subtle effects over time was not there. As stewards of good science, they admitted that those studies were needed.http://edibleintelligence.blogspot.com

About the GMOs: On that particular discussion, I have no opinion. I definitely see where the "no GMO labeling" argument is coming from. If there’s no evidence for a difference, then labeling definitely implies that there *is* a verified difference.If a store advertises (truthfully) "Excellent customer service! Entire sales staff is brunette!", I think that there is an implied connection between the two. The store may believe in the connection, and some customers may believe in the connection, completely without any evidence. Based on how people think advertising works in America (that claims should be true and verified), the advertising could actively cause *more* people to believe the link, to the detriment of bald retail workers.

If there is no shame in your game (I’m talking to you manufacturers and providers of services), then you should honestly and truthfully list ingredients and any practices undertaken in the production of said products and/or services. Let me decide, as the consumer, what I want for myself. I don’t need you making decisions for me. THAT is the great tragedy in marketing (that is marketing). I would like to see manufacturers treat me like an adult and if they have GMOs in their products they should label it exactly as the “no GMO” labeling. And there should be no happy looking cow next to that declaration. Then as a consumer I will do the research myself to find out if that is right for me and my lifestyle. Why are others making decisions about what I should know and what I shouldn’t? That story is just infuriating.

db1618 makes a false analogy for a number of reasons. Among them: 1. Customers can see whether the store’s workers are brunette or not, and if they wish for whatever reasons to make their patronage decisions on that basis they have the information to do so. GMO’s are invisible unless labeled.2. There is a verifiable difference between GMO and non-GMO crops. It is not necessarily a difference in aesthetic or nutritional quality, but it is a difference, it is indeed verifiable and it is a difference that is important to many people. The average consumer’s most powerful influence on agricultural policy is the power of the purse. There should be no barriers to the display of ANY truthful information that they may wish to use in the exercise of that power.

I don’t think those points make it false, though they are valid points for the argument. If you change the "brown hair" to something unobservable, like whether they’re wearing underwear :), then the analogy still holds.I think the second point does get to the crux of the issue, though. What information *should* consumers be allowed to discriminate on? I believe strongly in consumer choice and agree strongly with leslieland’s second point, to the point that I now agree with the posting’s implied conclusion (that outlawing GMO/non-GMO labeling is wrong). However, we can all probably come up with information that we think is "going too far"–that goes from disclosing information to condoning, exploiting, or even encouraging unfounded prejudice.

Here's the problem…<br>You won't do your own research. You'll Google the term, 'GMO' and get a bunch of activists websites that will scare you off of it. Unfortunately, we've let public opinion drive decisions that should be grounded in science. If GMO crops, ingredients are no different(and they aren't) then why should they be identified? Identifying them lends credence to the notion that they are different and gives undue credibility to the Food Hysterics out there whose main goal is to return to the time of slaves and oxen pulling ploughs, because they have romanticized that time in the past.

A couple of corrections should be made. First, to be more accurate, cans are not lined with BPA. Some cans are lined with a synthetic that releases small amounts of BPA. Not quite the same thing.Second, there ARE provable, noticeable differences between GMO crops (corn, for example), and their non-GMO counterparts. Anyone who states otherwise is being silly. If it were true, there would be no reason for gene modification in the first place. But to back that up, here is a link to a peer-reviewed study that found a link between 3 different varieties of Monsanto Gene-modified corn, and liver and kidney damage in experimental animals: http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htmEven better (or worse, depending on your point of view), it is not possible to claim that this study was cherry-picked from hundreds just because it produced the desired results. Quite the contrary, this study used MONSANTO’S OWN DATA. The data came from animal studies done by (or contracted by) Monsanto in its own effort to get approval for the crops by U.S. regulators.

In case you don’t want to read through the whole paper, I will add that all 3 of the Monsanto corn varieties studied (one of which was the very common "Roundup-Ready" corn) contained traces of insecticide, produced by the corn itself as a result of the gene modifications. In the other two cases, the insecticides present are new and unproven, which should be a red flag all by itself. Regardless, in all 3 cases detectable signs of liver and kidney toxicity were demonstrated.People can argue that GMO crops are "safe" until the cows come home, but that claim has now been soundly refuted.

It's been a while since I looked at that study, but I think there were issues with how the stats were handled as well as exploiting a natural difference between male and female samples to make the results seem statistically different.

I've also heard that the validity and soundness of the the authors of the study has been called into question in the past. All they came up with, even after manipulating statistical analysis was that they didn't know enough to rule it out. Besides, one study never proves anything. Results must be reproduceable in other peer reviewed studies that account for the shortcomings in theirs. Other wise, you could just keep redoing a study until you got the answers that supported your views. Instead you have to look at a wide body of credible studies to reach a general consensus. That's how science works, not 'we found a study that says otherwise, case closed.'

Of course nothing can go wrong by screwing around with the biospheres genome by altering self-propagating organisms. Around about year 2000 or 2001, genetic engineers in Australia while attempting to create a mouse contraceptive, completely by accident, created an incredibly lethal version of mousepox (i.e the mouse version of smallpox). If anyone is interested you can read on it here.http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/2009/11/armageddon-bug.html

samvance:First, what you "heard" is probably not relevant. I have "heard" that lightning does not strike twice in the same place. Want to bet on that?Second, "the validity and soundness of the authors" is also not relevant, since theirs was a peer-reviewed paper published in a respected journal. That is the standard today by which such things are measured, so unsubstantiated claims of suspected unreliability, such as yours, won’t wash.Third, you are wrong about just "not ruling it out". Actual evidence of organ damage was found.Fourth, it WASN’T "one study". It was a meta-analysis of the data produced by Monsanto’s OWN studies (plural!) that were submitted to the USDA as evidence of the fitness of the products. As such, not only did this establish that GMO corn products produce appreciable quantities of harmful chemicals, it ALSO demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the current approval process.And lastly, it is it you who have science backward. If you have a theory, such as: "GMO corn is not harmful", then the existence of one, single, counterexample does indeed invalidate that theory. THAT, in fact, is the way science works.

Metastudies; the studies of studies, are complete crap. They seem to be good for trying to turn up patterns, but the true test is an original study, peer-reviewed in a science journal(a journal in that specific field, not some other area of science) that has it's results reproduced. You're taking data, out of context, and re-purposing it. Even if it was the same type of study, conditions will be different enough that you can't lump the results together. It's lazy science and is only used to try to bolster one side's argument, not seek a truth of any kind. A consensus does not fail because of one counter argument. That is like Ohio State winning a football game 75 – 0 then losing because the opposing team scored once. Now, if that counter argument is replicated(opposing team scores again) and other studies appear and are replicated, then the score(consensus) can change.<br> <br>GMO's are an interesting subject to debate because people who are against GMO's oppose them as if ever one is the same. The truth is that GMO's must be examined on a case by case basis. Perhaps it turns out there could be a gene infused variety that causes a problem, that doesn't mean that it's the case with any other GMO. To be opposed to all GMO's as if it were a singular thing, reveals a fundamental ignorance of science and reason. You make yourself no more legitimate in my eyes, than a creationist, who opposes evolution because it interferes with their belief system.<br> <br>There are legitimate questions to be raised about GMO's that you could put forth, but lack of credibility in this argument makes you weak for debate in the other. I'm not concerned with the magical allegations of a few tin-hat, pseudo-creationists who think that all GMO's are bad and cause any and all of the world's health problems. I am concerned with pesticide/microbiological resistance and the rate at which these things adapt to GMO's. That being said, billions of acres have been planted in the last 20+ years and the effects, if any, are minimal.

<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div><div>This says a lot more about you than it does me.</div><div><br></div><div>First off, you admit that you are relying on consensus for authority of opinion… and CONSENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE. Consensus is not a valid argument at all. And contrary to your assertion, even if consensus were important, in science a consensus can indeed fail — in fact often has — because of a single contrary example.&nbsp;Your analogy is invalid.&nbsp;All it did was convince me even more that you are not aware of how science really works. It’s not a football game.</div><div><br></div><div>Second, if a meta-analysis finds information that contradicts the findings of the original study, as in this case, it’s disingenuous to say that it’s just "crap". The only way that one of them <u>could not be</u> wrong, is if they were <u>both</u> done badly. It’s that simple. Therefore an open re-examination of the original studies and their data is called for.</div><div><br></div><div>Third, this meta-analysis was not a "study of a study". It was merely another study that relied in part on the same data. This is done all the time in scientific circles.</div><div><br></div><div>Fourth, I am not opposed to GMOs on principle, so that argument does not apply to me. In fact I used to be a strong supporter, until I started running across evidence that <b>some</b> GMOs are not the harmless boons they first appeared to be. Not all. Just some. But that is enough to justify a re-examination of the safety of this field in general.</div><div><br></div><div>Fifth, the "lack of credibility" is only in your head. It was a peer-reviewed paper published in a relevant and respected international journal. If that lacks credibility, then so do the papers that appear in <i>Nature</i>. You can’t have that both ways.</div><div><br></div><div>What it boils down to is that I presented here valid evidence that GMOs are not all harmless. You refuted that scientific evidence by calling it "crap" and saying that it "lacks credibility". Hmm. In all honesty I don’t think that’s how to win this "football game".</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Lonny Eachus</div><div>============</div><div><br></div><br><div><div></div></div></body></html>

Been trying to stay out of this, but Samvance’s "GMO’s are an interesting subject to debate because people who are against GMO’s oppose them as if ever one is the same. The truth is that GMO’s must be examined on a case by case basis." got me.I absolutely agree – in theory – and am afraid that many GMO opponents are thinking less than clearly. BUT, we do not live in a theoretical world, and the one we’re stuck in is:* Heavily weighted toward monocrop factory farming at the agencies charged with regulating these products. * Distressingly willing to believe that essential precautions (like planting protective belts of conventional crops) will be undertaken by every single farmer, even though penalties for violation are no more than a slap on the wrist.*Hostile to the sorts of labeling than would enable consumers to vote for or against GMO’s on an individual basis.In other words, in an ideal world, science rules. Out here in real life, politics dominate, most of politics is dominated by corporate interests and no position more complex than a sound bite has a chance of being politically effective.Regardless of its oversimplifications, being "against all GMO’s" is the only activist position available to rational people with questions of the sort Samvance somewhat grudgingly regards as legitimate. (Effects are not "minimal," btw, when larger than usual quantities of conventional herbicide are required to kill roundup-resistant weeds, to take but one example).

Consensus IS science when it is within the scientific experts in that field. Otherwise, climate change would be disproven because a few scientists have contradictory evidence. That isn't the case, and the reason it isn't the case is because there is a consensus among the worlds scientific experts on the matter that climate change is real.<br> <br>If they really want to prove that a specific GMO causes organ failure in humans they need to A) Use the breed of mice that most closely mimics the organ functions of humans B) Test a large sample size of these mice with the specific GMO in specific quantities for a specific time period and compare against a control group of other mice. Publish their ORIGINAL study in a peer reviewed journal specific to the subject matter, then other scientists need to replicate the studies and get the same results and publish their version of the study. Then and only then will something be proven. And even then, the proof applies to that specific gene application.<br> <br>Believe it or not, I don't have a side in this. What I don't want is something that is so beneficial to our world and it's ability to feed people to be given up on because Food Hysterics and people with an extreme anti-corporate view think it's bad <i>despite</i> sound science that supports the product as being safe.

<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>No, you are simply wrong. Consensus is not science. They are two very different things.&nbsp;But continue to believe so if you like. It makes very little difference to me.</div><div><br></div><div>As for your other point, you are merely repeating what I already stated: that further study is called for.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div><div></div></div></body></html>

This is why we need more science education, so there will be less people spending 30 seconds on Google and claiming discredited studies as hard fact, like you have. I kind of pity you. You know, Ohio State has great food science and ag science depts, as does Penn State. There are faculty listings you can find and then email research professors to clear up some of the confusion. Also, there might be something on iTunes U. I know Texas A&amp;M has some stuff posted… just checked and there are plenty of universities that post content. Best of luck to you in your search for knowledge.<br> Sam Vance.<br><a href="http://edibleintelligence.blogspot.com">http://edibleintelligence.blogspot.com</a&gt;

<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>You keep saying these things, but not presenting any evidence. Evidence is where it’s at, dude, or you lose the argument. That’s what science is all about.</div><div><br></div><div>So: how was this study "discredited"? Who discredited it? In what paper, in what prestigious journal?</div><div><br></div><div>Please put up or shut up. Your arguments have been just… empty.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div><div></div></div></body></html>

It's been a while, so I forget where I got the info, but the breed of mice were wrong and the statistical analysis was a bit unusual compared to what is normally done. A point was also made that it's not uncommon for a large amount of mice to die in any study and that wasn't accounted for in the meta-analysis. This is the problem with creating a study using other people's data, by the way. I don't know why I keep falling for parlour tricks like this by you people. You shout out something you googled and barely understand, assert it as fact, then yell 'prove it!' when anyone says otherwise, putting the burden of proof on the other person. It's a pretty good trick. The problem is that the top scientists that know the problem with the study and know how to properly interpret the results work for entities that you would immediately disregard as biased. It's ironic that being an expert in your field now means you're a shill, while uneducated lay-people can assert that their conspiracy theories they found in Google are the truth and shoot down every rebuttal as biased.<br> <br>If you're an expert in crop science, where do you work? Do you work at Denny's, serving up Moons Over My Hammy? No. You either stay at the university level, work for the government, or work for an agricultural firm, all sourced you will just blow off as biased.<br> <br><a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/15/gm-corn-organ-failure-lots-of-sensationalism-few-facts/">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/15/gm-corn-organ-failure-lots-of-sensationalism-few-facts/</a&gt;

It's been a while, so I forget where I got the info, but the breed of mice were wrong and the statistical analysis was a bit unusual compared to what is normally done. A point was also made that it's not uncommon for a large amount of mice to die in any study and that wasn't accounted for in the meta-analysis. This is the problem with creating a study using other people's data, by the way. I don't know why I keep falling for parlour tricks like this by you people. You shout out something you googled and barely understand, assert it as fact, then yell 'prove it!' when anyone says otherwise, putting the burden of proof on the other person. It's a pretty good trick. The problem is that the top scientists that know the problem with the study and know how to properly interpret the results work for entities that you would immediately disregard as biased. It's ironic that being an expert in your field now means you're a shill, while uneducated lay-people can assert that their conspiracy theories they found in Google are the truth and shoot down every rebuttal as biased.<br> <br>If you're an expert in crop science, where do you work? Do you work at Denny's, serving up Moons Over My Hammy? No. You either stay at the university level, work for the government, or work for an agricultural firm, all sourced you will just blow off as biased.<br> <br><a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/15/gm-corn-organ-failure-lots-of-sensationalism-few-facts/">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/15/gm-corn-organ-failure-lots-of-sensationalism-few-facts/</a&gt;

It's been a while, so I forget where I got the info, but the breed of mice were wrong and the statistical analysis was a bit unusual compared to what is normally done. A point was also made that it's not uncommon for a large amount of mice to die in any study and that wasn't accounted for in the meta-analysis. This is the problem with creating a study using other people's data, by the way. I don't know why I keep falling for parlour tricks like this by you people. You shout out something you googled and barely understand, assert it as fact, then yell 'prove it!' when anyone says otherwise, putting the burden of proof on the other person. It's a pretty good trick. The problem is that the top scientists that know the problem with the study and know how to properly interpret the results work for entities that you would immediately disregard as biased. It's ironic that being an expert in your field now means you're a shill, while uneducated lay-people can assert that their conspiracy theories they found in Google are the truth and shoot down every rebuttal as biased.<br> <br>If you're an expert in crop science, where do you work? Do you work at Denny's, serving up Moons Over My Hammy? No. You either stay at the university level, work for the government, or work for an agricultural firm, all sourced you will just blow off as biased.<br> <br><a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/15/gm-corn-organ-failure-lots-of-sensationalism-few-facts/">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/15/gm-corn-organ-failure-lots-of-sensationalism-few-facts/</a&gt;

<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div><div>I did nothing of the sort. I found an article published in a scientific journal, and I understand it a lot better than you seem to think.</div><div><br></div><div>I do not deny that they may be refutations out there, in the scientific literature, but until I see it, I will accept the legitimate published works in the field that I have read. You have been doing a lot of ASSUMING here: assuming that I don’t know the field, assuming that I don’t understand what I read, assuming that I am biased. Where did those assumptions come from? They sure didn’t come from me.</div><div><br></div><div>I never claimed to be an expert in "crop science"… which in fact is rather irrelevant here. The point was animal toxicity. But aside from that, I have only a few more things to say, before I am done here:</div><div><br></div><div>(1) If you don’t know the difference between a peer-reviewed, published refutation, and a blog post in a popular magazine, you should not even be writing about this.</div><div><br></div><div>(2) Right at the top of the Discover blog post, they make the very point that I made before. In fact, ALL "sides" are saying the same thing: the data are inadequate and more study has to be done. So what is your real argument here?</div><div><br></div><div>(3) I had to laugh when Discover called out the study for "cherry picking" data. This is hilarious. The study used data from studies that MONSANTO had THEMSELVES already cherry-picked to support their "side" of the argument! I didn’t bother to read any further. They quite obviously have biases of their own.</div><div><br></div><div>I am done here. If at some point you decide to say something convincing, I might change my mind. But for now, I am gone.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div><div></div></div></body></html>

<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div><div>I did nothing of the sort. I found an article published in a scientific journal, and I understand it a lot better than you seem to think.</div><div><br></div><div>I do not deny that they may be refutations out there, in the scientific literature, but until I see it, I will accept the legitimate published works in the field that I have read. You have been doing a lot of ASSUMING here: assuming that I don’t know the field, assuming that I don’t understand what I read, assuming that I am biased. Where did those assumptions come from? They sure didn’t come from me.</div><div><br></div><div>I never claimed to be an expert in "crop science"… which in fact is rather irrelevant here. The point was animal toxicity. But aside from that, I have only a few more things to say, before I am done here:</div><div><br></div><div>(1) If you don’t know the difference between a peer-reviewed, published refutation, and a blog post in a popular magazine, you should not even be writing about this.</div><div><br></div><div>(2) Right at the top of the Discover blog post, they make the very point that I made before. In fact, ALL "sides" are saying the same thing: the data are inadequate and more study has to be done. So what is your real argument here?</div><div><br></div><div>(3) I had to laugh when Discover called out the study for "cherry picking" data. This is hilarious. The study used data from studies that MONSANTO had THEMSELVES already cherry-picked to support their "side" of the argument! I didn’t bother to read any further. They quite obviously have biases of their own.</div><div><br></div><div>I am done here. If at some point you decide to say something convincing, I might change my mind. But for now, I am gone.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div><div></div></div></body></html>